US Military Enters Civil War Zones- Azerbaijan and Georgia

I wonder how many Americans would actually support sending troops into Georgia and Azerbaijan if they only knew it was already being done? There are civil wars in both those two countries, and the US is intervening into them secretly. The role of a free press is to at least inform the citizenry that their country is at war and troops have been dispersed into foreign countries. It is clear that the US press has dismally failed in doing this.

Further, these US military adventures to steal away the oil in Central Asia are provocative to Russia, which continues to have a nuclear arsenal. There is nothing reassuring in having a Dick Cheney and Halliburton heading up foreign policy in that region, though a change to John Kerry would be little better. Clearly both Democrats and Republicans support this hidden US militarism that eventually might literally blow up in our faces. The bipartisan policy is... Their Blood for Making It Our Oil. It's a clear case of foreign policy run by gangsters and pirates.

Nurse Hardee

Subj: spacewar.com
Date: 3/14/2004
WAR.WIRE
US military to ramp up presence in oil-rich Azerbaijan: general

BAKU (AFP) Mar 13, 2004
The US military has reached agreement with the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan to train Azeri troops and use bases in the country to deploy its own forces, a senior US commander said in the Azeri capital Saturday.The announcement, made by General Charles F. Wald, Deputy Commander of US European Command after talks with Azeri President Ilham Aliyev, marks a dramatic ramping up of the US military presence in the strategic region.

General Wald said the Azeri government had agreed to make its facilities available so that US forces could deploy temporarily to the country, though he ruled out a permanent presence in Azerbaijan.

He added that his command was seeking permission from US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to send instructors to train the Azeri military, in a programme similar to one being run in neighbouring Georgia.

"We would like the opportunity to come here temporarily for a short period of time with various forces to train and be better able to work together and establish inter-operability and to show our commitment to the region," the general told reporters at a press conference.

He added: "We hope and we know that the Azerbaijan authorities agree with us on this."

The Pentagon wants a presence in the region to counteract what it sees as a threat from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It is also keen to protect exports of oil from the Caspian Sea to Western markets. A US-backed pipeline crossing Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey is due to come on stream at the beginning of 2005.

However, an increased US military presence is likely to be received coolly by Azerbaijan's neighbours, Russia to the north and Iran to the south.

Moscow in particular views the region as part of its sphere of influence and reacted angrily when US military instructors were deployed to Georgia.

But Wald sounded a reassuring note, saying that "we do plan to work with the Russians as closely as possible to make sure that the way ahead is a shared strategy."

The Pentagon floated the idea of a US military presence in Azerbaijan last year, but the details are now being hammered out by both sides.

Azerbaijan is a predominantly Muslim state of eight million people on the western shore of the Caspian Sea. Its pro-Western government has backed the US-led war on terrorism and it has sent contingents of troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Asked what form the deployment of US forces in Azerbaijan could take, General Wald said: it could be "from a naval standpoint, it could be special forces, it could be ground operations."

The general, on his second visit to Azerbaijan in three months, ruled out the establishment of US bases in the country.

But he added: "It is in our interests if the Azerbaijan government, say, improves the facilities at one of the air bases and if we came here and temporarily used it it would be able to accommodate our aircraft."

He said the planned training of Azeri troops would be along the lines of the Georgia Train and Equip Programme, under which some 150 US Green Beret special forces instructors have been stationed in Georgia training about 2,000 local troops.

Wald said that his superior, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General James L. Jones, will be advising the Pentagon to establish a similar programme in Azerbaijan.

"We have been in Georgia training the military for the last year and a half," the general said. "We see the benefits of that, having experience of working with the Azerbaijan forces, from the point of view of interoperability with US forces."

"It has not been approved but we think it would be a good idea and the civilian administration in Washington agrees with that."

International mediators and political analysts expected the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process to accelerate once Azerbaijan completed a transfer of power from former leader Heidar Aliyev to his son Ilham. The dynastic transition of authority occurred as expected, but Karabakh developments have not gone as many envisioned. Instead of picking up the pace of talks with Armenian officials, Azerbaijani authorities now say they are in "no hurry" to reach a Karabakh settlement.

In recent weeks, Azerbaijani officials, including Aliyev and Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev, have sought to scrap years of painstaking negotiations brokered by the OSCE's Minsk Group, which is co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States. "I am not in favor of making compromises," Ilham Aliyev declared in a February 9 television interview.

The Karabakh peace process has been in a state of suspended animation for well over a year, with political factors in both Armenia and Azerbaijan combining to bring talks to a halt. Presidential and parliamentary elections in early 2003 preoccupied Armenia. [For background information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In Azerbaijan, an ailing Heider Aliyev appeared to set aside the Karabakh question in order to orchestrate the take-over by Ilham. Heidar Aliyev's incapacitating illness starting last April merely deepened the policy paralysis in Baku. [For background information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Many observers believed that once Ilham was securely installed as president he would strive to resolve the Karabakh issue quickly, driven by a desire to improve the regional security environment for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is scheduled to start pumping oil towards Western markets in 2005. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Armenian and Azerbaijani officials were believed to have hammered out the framework of a peace deal during talks held at the US resort island of Key West, off Florida. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The framework reportedly called on Azerbaijan to cede Karabakh to Armenia. In return, Armenian forces would withdraw from occupied lands in Azerbaijan proper. The Key West principles were believed to have provided a point of departure for future talks.

Ilham has confounded those expectations, however. Azerbaijani officials have denied that any agreement in principle was reached in Key West. Now, instead of being eager to deal with Armenia, the new president has repeatedly said that Azerbaijan is not in a rush to come to a political settlement. Azerbaijani officials appear to believe they can increase their negotiating leverage against Armenia simply by waiting.

"Justice is with us, and time will work for us," Aliyev said in the February 9 television. "Assessing the countries [Armenia and Azerbaijan] in terms of economic potential, you will see that we are in better position."

In addition, Guliyev, the Azerbaijani foreign minister, left open the possibility that Baku might resume armed operations. He characterized Yerevan's insistence that Karabakh is Armenian territory as an intentional effort to stall the peace process. "We did not promise a permanent ceasefire [over Karabakh] and Yerevan must be sure that if a war begins, it will be Azerbaijan that will start it," the Baku daily Ekspress quoted Guliyev as saying February 20.

Domestic political factors continue to exert considerable influence over Azerbaijan's Karabakh policy, some observers suggest. They point out that Ilham's rise to power did not go as smoothly as many in government had hoped. In the eyes of many Azerbaijanis, widespread vote-rigging in the October presidential election, along with the government's post-vote crackdown, have tainted Ilham's legitimacy, political analysts add. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Analysts also speculate that Ilham may be having trouble exerting his will over all portions of his father's vast bureaucratic apparatus. Ilham could thus benefit from more time to establish his authority -- both within the ruling New Azerbaijan Party and, more broadly, in the general public - before taking what would undoubtedly be a politically painful step of making concessions to Armenia.

A few policy experts suggest that Ilham is siding with hardliners in his presidential apparatus, which has remained largely unchanged from his father's administration. The hardliners reject compromise and insist that Karabakh remain territorially part of Azerbaijan.

In adopting a "no hurry" policy, Azerbaijan may be trying to take advantage of changing geopolitical conditions in the Caucasus. In particular, Baku appears to be trying to play the United States and Russia off each other in order to secure increased international support for Azerbaijan's desire to keep Karabakh.

Russia figures prominently in Baku's political calculations. Karabakh was the major topic of discussion when Ilham Aliyev flew to Moscow in early February to meet top Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Ilham's apparent aim was to weaken the special relationship between Russia and Armenia.

His efforts met with limited success. While Moscow did not give any indication that it was prepared to diminish its close ties with Armenia, Russian leaders gave vague assurances that it would not take sides on the Karabakh question. Putin told a joint press conference on 6 February that Russia could not force either Armenia or Azerbaijan into making concessions. "We'll accelerate our activities to help the conflicting sides reach a peace agreement," Putin said.

Most members of Azerbaijan's policy-making elite believe that Russian support played a key role in Armenia's triumph in the Karabakh war. A Russian pledge of neutrality, then, would significantly enhance Azerbaijan's position on the Karabakh issue, many in Baku believe.

However, it remains a matter of debate in Baku whether Russia did indeed take a vow of neutrality. Vafa Gulazade, an adviser to three Azerbaijani presidents, including Heidar Aliyev, has said Putin's so-called Karabakh formula did not mark any substantial change in the current Russian position. Rasim Musabeyov, a Baku-based political analyst close to the Musavat opposition party, concurred with Gulazade's assessment.

"During his visit to Baku two years ago, Putin talked about this formula," Musabeyov said. "The formula suggests that Russia is not going to offend Armenia, and that Azerbaijan should either sign a peace agreement, confessing its loss of the war, or keep the existing "no war, no peace" situation."

But Aydin Musayev, a political analyst of the American and European Studies Department at the Baku State University, believes that recent events in Georgia are pushing Russia closer to Azerbaijan's Karabakh position. The so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia had installed a clearly pro-Western leadership in Tbilisi, Musayev said. Moscow is now concerned that if it does not do more to accommodate Aliyev, Azerbaijan could also turn to the West. "Putin realizes quite well that should Russia fail to help resolve [Karabakh], Aliyev could also turn in an absolute pro-Western direction as Georgia did," Musayev said.

Merican as can be, Picaresque. What nationality are you? Are you from Georgia, the Peachtree State? That would be north of Hell.

I guess I shouldn't talk about Azerbaijanis in polite society, right? If so, that's proof in the puddin...? NH

Mar 15, '04

Quote from NurseHardee

Merican as can be, Picaresque. What nationality are you? Are you from Georgia, the Peachtree State? That would be north of Hell.

I guess I shouldn't talk about Azerbaijanis in polite society, right? If so, that's proof in the puddin...? NH

Just curious you seem to be very against military action and you never know who or where someone is from unless they list location, I have two brother-laws in the service and they both do a hard job in hard circumstances and I agree Bush is worhtless and we should not really be in any of these places but the men are doing the jobs they were trained for and doing the best they can!

ps subtle hints in my profile give my local, Just north of hell is where ever I happen to be standing at any given moment, because i have always feared that someday the earth would open and hell would swallow me up! :uhoh21:

Mar 15, '04

Well that illustrates the problem of trying to dismantle the US's bloated military machine, Picaresque. Everybody has relatives, neighbors, etc. in the military, living off my tax paid money. Almost all the whole US economy is some sort of supply machine for this killing that is always underway everywhere. And funny thing is, most of you say you are against socialism!

But you're damn well for this socialism for the corporations. And it has a name... corporatism. Next shift in the CCU check out corporatism at work, and compare it to care.

Nurse Hardee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<<Just curious you seem to be very against military action and you never know who or where someone is from unless they list location, I have two brother-laws in the service and they both do a hard job in hard circumstances and I agree Bush is worhtless and we should not really be in any of these places but the men are doing the jobs they were trained for and doing the best they can!>>

Mar 15, '04

sure you can go on and on but can you change anything? does your rant have reason or are you just trying to put down the American ways? Spend your tax dollars to support all the things you complain about, just quit paying and see if that puts an end to any of the problems. I guess you feel we should not have any military? you don't like paying the salary of the enlisted men?

good luck with your campaigne

Last edit by CCU NRS on Mar 15, '04

Mar 15, '04

Not even touching this one.

Mar 15, '04

I never understand why so many people take the position that objecting to a particular US military intervention automatically equals "not supporting our troops" -- it's not like the individual soldiers all got together one afternoon and decided on their own that they'd rather be in Azerbaijan (or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or ...........). Those decisions get made by people in DC for political and diplomatic reasons, and the people who make the decisions are never in any physical danger themselves as a result of sending our troops off to another God-forsaken corner of the world, to get shot at in some conflict that has nothing to do with us.

How come not wanting our soldiers to get sent to the far side of the planet to get killed in a conflict that has nothing to do with the US doesn't count as supporting our troops??? NurseHardee and I want your family members to stay safe and healthy, CCU NRS!

I had not heard that we're now causing trouble in Georgia and Azerbaijan, TOO, and I appreciate NurseHardee posting the info. I did already know that the current administration has big plans for the oil in that part of the world, as the article noted, and it seems fairly obvious to me that this is another example of our so-called "president" using his office (and the human and financial resources of the US) to benefit and protect the private, corporate investments of his oil buddies ... Is that a good reason to risk the lives of American soldiers?

There is absolutely nothing "un-American" about disagreeing with the government and raising our voices about that -- in fact, it's one of the most American things we can do, and one of the founding principles of the nation. The founders wrote it into the FIRST amendment in the Bill of Rights for a reason -- because they considered it one of the most important rights to have ...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson

"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" -- G.K. Chesterton (British statesman and author)

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." -- Carl Schurz, US Senator

One of the great attractions of patriotism -- it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous." -- Aldous Huxley, British author and philosopher

"When a whole nation is roaring patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, American author and philosopher

CCU NRS your posts are heavy with the pain of conflicted ideas: calling Hardee a rabblerouser because she offers information and calling to question her patriotism ['are you American?'] while at the same time stating "Bush is worthless" and your brothers ought not be where they are reflects your hurt.

Which America do you prefer; one in which the citizens are informed and participate in decisions or one where only the powerful decide?

CCU NRS your posts are heavy with the pain of conflicted ideas: calling Hardee a rabblerouser because she offers information and calling to question her patriotism ['are you American?'] while at the same time stating "Bush is worthless" and your brothers ought not be where they are reflects your hurt.

Which America do you prefer; one in which the citizens are informed and participate in decisions or one where only the powerful decide?

Never said my Bros should not be where they are, I said they don't get to chose where they are sent. There is no real conflict I disagree not only with Bush but all republicans and my point is only that TPTB are going to run things and I can not change that but My wife comes from a very poor family and her brothers had to take the only real option they had to further their station in life by by joining the service as many poor americans must and the Men and Women in the service are doing the best job they can do in difficult circumstances, They do not get the option to chose where they serve and what countries are invaded/occupied but they follow orders and do the best job they can do and it is people that rabblerouse against american soldiers not the government that raise my ire!!! The men and women of the services do a thankless 24/7 in the eye of the public cold, hard, tiresome job and people that sit in their homes and watch CNN and MSNBC and then complain about the soldiers that are in countires that are having problems. They should get out in the fray and try to make a difference not just sit and complain, and say that the soldier that shot someone was wrong and should not have even been where they were, let the first person that wants to replace this soldier go and try to do the same job and then see if they feel they did the wrong thing. It is just like all the soldiers who returned from Vietnam to be ridiculed and spat upon shame on Americans that want to find fault with men and women that protect their country so they can sleep in a warm safe bed at night and they don't ever have to fear being invaded!!!!

Just My Opinion

Last edit by CCU NRS on Mar 15, '04

Mar 15, '04

Picaresque, you missed my point about how the US economy revolves around the US military, and how all that needs to be changed. Instead of wanting more gainful employment for your brother-in-laws, you just want people to shut up about what they do around the globe.

Problem is, there are many people who flat out think that they should not be deployed in offensive maneuvers against other peoples in the world. Telling us to go do the job of your brother-in-laws and to stop complaining entirely misses the boat, does it not?

Many American antiwar advocates invite considerable abuse by their neighbors and the government when they speak out against the atrocities being committed in our name. Instead of us gong to replace your family members, why don't you go out and help us at some of the antiwar rallies. That would be a good opportunity for you to see yet another side of the government here, that you think it so important to defend the policies of. Sometimes, it is not such a pretty picture, but we know that the real abusiveness of our government tries to onceal itself at home inside US borders. Outside it's often torture and mayhem though. It would be nice if instead of just ignoring this stuff, if you were to add your voice to speak out against it.

As to how antiwar folk supposedly spit upon returning Vietnam war vets, that is really an urban myth. The environment I remember, was how the Dallas, Texas papers always had protestors on the editorial pages in cartoons, where they were dressed as wearing dirty clothing and with swarms of flies flying around their heads. And if I went out with hair more than about 1 inch long, gangs of redneck jerks would start to threaten me physically. I'd say that's a far cry from the picture you paint of that era..

Nurse Hardee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<<....but My wife comes from a very poor family and her brothers had to take the only real option they had to further their station in life by by joining the service as many poor americans must and the Men and Women in the service are doing the best job they can do in difficult circumstances, They do not get the option to chose where they serve and what countries are invaded/occupied but they follow orders and do the best job they can do and it is people that rabblerouse against american soldiers not the government that raise my ire!!! The men in women of the services do a thankless 24/7 in the eye of the public cold, hard, tiresome job and people that sit in their homes and watch CNN and MSNBC and then complain about the soldiers that are in countires that are having problems. They should get out in the fray and try to make a difference not just sit and complain, and say that the soldier that shot someone was wrong and should not have even been where they were, let the first person that wants to replace this soldier go and try to do the same job and then see if they feel they did the wrong thing. It is just like all the soldiers who returned from Vietnam to be ridiculed and spat upon shame on Americans that want to find fault with men and women that protect their country so they can sleep in a warm safe bed at night and they don't ever have to fear being invaded!!!!>>

Last edit by NurseHardee on Mar 15, '04

Mar 15, '04

[QUOTE=NurseHardee]Picaresque, you missed my point about how the US economy revolves around the US military, and how all that needs to be changed. Instead of wanting more gainful employment for your brother-in-laws, you just want people to shut up about what they do around the globe.

Problem is, there are many people who flat out think that they should not be deployed in offensive maneuvers against other peoples in the world. Telling us to go do the job of your brother-in-laws and to stop complaining entirely misses the boat, does it not?

QUOTE]

No I don't think it misses the boat I think that people that have all the answers on how to fix all the problems are very deluded and out of touch with reality. The reality is that if you start tomorrow you could not change the economy for a generation and the military of the USA is not only a money machine but a necessary tool of the most formidable country in the world. I will admit that you are way over my head with many of your theories and thoughts about who and what and why things should be done differently I am afterall just a dumb Okie you know us dirt farmers are just used to getting dirty and getting the job done without all of the fancy legislative and buerocratic double talk we are doers not watchers we see a job that needs to be done we don't wait for someone to come along and try to fix the reason it happend we just fix the problem and move on, so I will relent to all of your understanding of interaction with other countries and governments and you obviously have a much better understanding of the entire socioeconimc situation of all countires concerned, but if you really beleive that the US military can be shut down and parted out like an old Ford I think you are seriously mistaken.

Mar 15, '04

Being from North Texas, I always thought that you Okies were a lot smarter than us a bit further South. Certainly it is a more attractive landscape where you are at, Yankee. And yeah, dumb ol' me. I really do think that the US military can be restrained some. It's going to happen, you know? Do you just want to keep that plant in Mcallister up and running forever? Munitions, munitions, munitions......................

Nurse Hardee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mercury RACE platform facilitates research by Oklahoma State University
Chelmsford 24 May 2001 Mercury Computer Systems donated a high-performance RACE multicomputer system to Oklahoma State University to assist with the school's advanced study of signals intelligence.

"Mercury's system will enable the students and faculty in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering to conduct sophisticated and extensive research into signals intelligence," said Dr. Keith Teague, Associate Professor at Oklahoma State University's College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. "Mercury's powerful systems are widely used in defence electronics, and notably in leading-edge applications for signals intelligence. The familiarisation our students receive with Mercury's products, combined with the extensive foundation and training they receive in digital signal processing, will equip them with a unique career advantage in the marketplace."

Oklahoma State University is conducting signals-intelligence research in conjunction with Raytheon Aircraft Integration Systems (AIS), which specializes in the development and integration of complex electronic systems for airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. With the aid of Mercury's real-time image and signal processing systems, Raytheon AIS and the university will explore advanced modulation signal recognition and classification, spatial audio separation, direction finding and other special projects. "Oklahoma State University has a world-class faculty and facilities, and Raytheon AIS is an industry leader in signals intelligence," said Vince Mancuso, vice president and general manager of Mercury's Government Electronics Group. "There is a shortage of qualified and skilled engineers, particularly in the defense electronics industry. Mercury is pleased to contribute this investment in the advanced education of tomorrow's technical leaders."